The White House has released a climate report which said about what you would expect from this administration. The world is facing an environmental catastrophe unless we adopt big government, socialist policies to combat global warming climate change. If those dastardly Republicans dont spend trillions farmers all over the country will suffer. Most of the problem here is that the left relies on supposedly scientific computer models, 95% of which have been wrong in their prediction. The climate change alarmists would have a higher success rate if politicians just made up numbers. As it stands, for all the science worship on the left the fact is science is usually spectacularly wrong in its climate predictions.

Most of the problem here is that the left relies on supposedly scientific computer models, 95% of which have been wrong in their prediction. The climate change alarmists would have a higher success rate if politicians just made up numbers.

As someone with a MS in computer science, two other engineering degrees, nearly 3 decades in engineering & computer science related fields, with nearly 2 of those decades in computer modeling I can tell you this. The computer models used for "climate science" are just made up numbers.

The technical problems with the models are numerous. I could list off a half dozen here (I think I may have in other posts before). These problems render the models basically useless and unreliable at matching/tracking real-world climate more than a few years out.

The bigger more fundamental problem is that no matter how many additional variables are added to the models, no matter how many more complex and subtle interactions between systems they add to the models, they will simply never be able to accurately model what will happen 100, 50, or even 20 years out. In other words these models cannot and never will be "predictive" of real world behavior.

There are two things working against them, neither of which they have much hope of ever overcoming. One is that the Earth is full of a tremendous variety of biological systems and species all interacting in ways obvious and subtle. We simply do not know enough about these species and subsystems to know how they will react to changes in the environment. Even worse, we don't know the interactions between them, if any. For example, we don't know if a slight rise in temperature will make some tree beetle in South America flourish or die off. Even harder to gauge, how would that affect the robin population in North America? Would it? Will some algae then begin to thrive and pull CO2 out of the atmosphere?

As the number of interacting entities increases, the number of interactions or potential interactions between them increases along the lines of the Fibonacci sequence. This explodes into a virtually un-knowable number of interactions. If you add in interactions of subsystems/subsets the number of interactions explodes along the lines of a factorial expansion.

So yes, I'm saying fundamental problem number one is that the problem is simply too hard, period. Fundamental problem number two is worse. Even if we understood all the trillions of interactions between millions of species and could characterize them in a model mother nature is going to thumb her nose at us and throw completely random events into the mix. Maybe a large volcanic eruption will spew a few cubic miles of ash into the atmosphere and cool the Earth. Maybe eruptions under the ocean will boil water into the air and trap more solar energy and we'll bake. Maybe eruptions will melt part of the Antarctic ice cap. Maybe not. Maybe an asteroid...maybe significant earthquakes will change...

Climate science, well, climate prediction, is thus an exercise in futility. Completely. They have no more chance of predicting the climate 50 or 100 years from now than I have of picking perfect brackets for the playoffs in every single major sport for the next 50 years.

In summary, I'm saying it's bad. Not only are the computer models technically flawed... Not only is the problem literally too big to tackle... Not only will random chance make any prediction unreliable... The final nail in the coffin is this. Even if we could know what was coming there are still two even bigger problems facing us. One is that there really is not much we can do on a global scale to make much difference. We're on a course and probably unable to make significant changes. Two, even if we could control the climate, we would almost certainly screw it up. Mankind's history of "environmental management" is 100% failure to do a good job at first, followed by slow recovery. Want to try that on a global scale? Ha!

Some of these climate change fanatics wouldn’t know real science if it slipped up behind them & kicked their collective butts up between their shoulder blades.If it did,they would still be too proud to admit it happened.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.